Middle East through the lens of Bitter Rivals (Iran vs Saudi Arabia)- Part I [Review]

Bitter Rivals (Iran and Saudi Arabia) a 3-hour long documentary by Frontline, covering almost all the major events in Middle-East, post-Iranian revolution, through the lens of equation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In fact, as we would learn by the end of the documentary there is not a single conflict in the Middle East which doesn’t have a Saudi Vs Iran angle. The region has always been a hotbed of conflicts, chaos and clashes since medieval age. However, the genesis of the contemporary conflicts in the region lies in the Islamic Revolution in Iran. In fact, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that today’s Shia-Sunni conflict in Muslim world has its roots pre dominantly in the Islamic Revolution!  

Islamic Revolution

Iranian Revolution back in 1979 was led by Ayatollah Khomeini, which resulted in removal of the US backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s monarchy in Iran. It was a revolution in many senses. Firstly, it substituted monarchy by the democracy and Ayatollah became the supreme leader of the country. Secondly, it revived Islamic values in the region and many countries re-introduced Sharia. Thirdly, it has been seen as the second most important event in Shiite sect, after Battle of Karbala, which deepened the Shia-Sunni rift. Fourthly, entire region ruled by monarchy was apprehensive of export of revolution in the region and didn’t take these revisionist developments very well, especially Saudi Royalty, which belonged to the Sunni Sect and enjoyed good relations with the United Sates.

Revival of Wahabism: Saudi, Pakistan & Afghanistan 

Ayatollah Khomeini tried to revive the Shia sect in the far-flung areas, including Saudi Kingdom. This led to various uprising in Saudi Arabia which was brutally crushed. In the same year, seizure of Mecca (holiest site of Muslim world) was carried out by Mahdis, under the leadership of al-Qahtani, a Wahabi-fringe, to bring down the House of Sauds which was taken back through the siege. In response to the same, Saudi Kingdom became reactionary and tried to represent itself as guardian of Islamic values in the Muslim world. Religious establishments were given money (petro dollars) and resources to promote and propagate the Wahabism and Sharia in response to Iranian attempt to export revolution. Saudi Arabia encouraged Pakistan (Sunni dominated) for spreading Wahabhism through pumping money in madarsas, and encouraging religious practices of Islam.  President of Pakistan, Zia-ul-Hq who came into power through a coup helped Saudi Arabia to Islamise the country. Saudis couldn’t have been in more luck when the Soviet Union was bent to spread communism in the belt during cold war era. This invasion of Afghanistan gave Saudis, a just reason to intervene in the region. Saudi Arabia grabbed the opportunity and the war was portrayed as Jihad (religious war) against godless communist. US actively supported (Cartar doctrine) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to resist the expansion of Soviet Union in Gulf countries. US in collaboration with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia formed Afghanistan Mujahdeen (rebel groups) to fight against Soviet Union. This way, Pakistan ISI was militarized by USA to keep a check on Soviet Union thus promoting jihad at global level. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia continued to spread Wahabi teachings and Sharia law in Pakistan. The militarization of the area with the combined force of Saudi Arabia and USA resulted in expulsion of Soviet Union.

Lebanon War

Afterwards many regional wars were not-so-indirectly supported by Iran and Saudi. In fact, it was the Iran vs Saudi Cold war of the region which was fought at different theatres by different players. First of them was Lebanon war in 1980s. The city of Nabitia was invaded by Israel while Palestinian army was thrown out. Iran supported Lebanon in driving out the Israel and kept US and Saudi Arabia at bay. The local rebel groups were indirectly trained by IRGC and Hezabollah came into existence which brought the glory to the local people. It was Iran’s first successful experiment of forming a Shia militia outside the Iranian borders. Hezbollah remains an unformidable force in the region to this day.

Iran-Iraq War

Another, decisive regional war was Iran-Iraq war which lasted for almost 8 years. The war has its genesis in 1979 when Khomeini led the Iranian revolution. With the apprehension of export of the revolution, Iraq led by Saddam with the intention to topple the newly-formed Ayatollah’s regime in Iran and capture new territory, made move into Iran. Iran, although ill-equipped, retaliated with full force of the civilians available in the country, including the children which were popularly known as "human wave attacks". The war turned out to be brutal as chemical weapons were used for the first time by Iraq. Iran was successful in pushing back the Iraqi army and decided to make offensive attack after being defensive for many days. After 8 years of huge devastation from both the sides, and arriving at a lose-lose situation, UN brokered a ceasefire in 1988.

The Side Effects of Knowledge on Human Mind

Ever wondered in life, ‘I shouldn’t have known this’? Well, if you haven’t,  you certainly will, at some point in your life.

As the title say, this article is about the side effects of gathering too much knowledge on an individual’s psychology and does not talk about the side effects arising from the misuse of knowledge (e. g. One can argue about invention of nuclear bombs).

I assume that we all agree on the very basic nature of knowledge that it is a driving force behind our actions and a tool we apply in different ways in our life to achieve our goals. To consider one aspect of knowledge on human behavior, let’s take a simple example:

Assume that you are attending a seminar on applications of physics in daily life phenomena, and a professor of physics and a student in commerce are sitting beside you. The speaker of the seminar is mistaken on certain critical aspects in the lecture. What do you reckon would be the response of the two guys sitting beside you on those mistakes made by the speaker? If I present the most common scenario, the professor would stand up and correct the speaker.

Now, add to it a common classroom scenario. Suppose, right before the seminar, you were having a discussion on similar topics with the professor and the commerce student. Now, would it be the commerce student or the professor who stands up and tells the speaker of the seminar about his mistakes. If I apply common experience here, it will still be the professor, not just because he was the first to catch the mistake; but also he had more confidence and more urge to correct that mistake.

Let’s take another example. Take the process of human growth starting from when we are children. A baby has very little gathered knowledge and has no business with the outside world. As we grow up, until around the age of 10, we are just gathering as much knowledge as fast as we can and accept everything around us to be the way the world has to be. As we grow, collect experiences and reach youth, we start learning from our and others’ experiences that there are many problems existing around us in the society. As we grow more and learn more, we reach a point where frustration starts creeping in, because we know things could be better around us, in our family, in our society.  This frustration, this sense of urgency continues until we reach a point of achievement (that we have solved or contributed towards solving some problem around us) or saturation (we agonize so much on our society’s conditions that finally we adjust, giving up trying to change it).  Now compare it to the mindset of a person who is born in the hills far from the hassles of a society, with knowledge just enough to survive.

Let’s take another example. It is related to psychology of slaves during the period of slavery in America in 17^th and 18^th centuries. There are numerous citations about how continuous slavery had changed the mindset of people who were born in slave families. Two such articles are The Mask of Obedience and The Psychological Effects of Slavery and Colonization on the Negro. The basic idea is that the slaves went into a phase of self-loathing and depression that they were good for nothing other than being slaves until there was a propagation of ideas of freedom by pioneers like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison. The article The Mask of Obedience also talks about the misery and depression among slaves. They had an idea of freedom and they did nothing to rise against their masters. What’s worse is that just the idea of freedom kept them in agony and still they didn’t gather the courage to fight for their freedom until they were led by abolitionists.  From the same article, I quote “Oppression driveth the wise man mad.”  meaning  “A person of intellect would go mad by such an oppression.”

What do all the above examples have in common?

The sense of Urgency

What the above examples have in common is a need for change, an urgency to make things right. It is as simple as that – unless you have an idea that something better exists, you are happy (or live with) what you have. Once you know, you can get something better, you start craving, agonizing yourself to achieve/ acquire that something.  If you are unable to achieve it, you keep yourself in a state of craving, a state of misery until you finally give up.

Knowledge is the driving force behind your senses towards a better life. In other word, knowledge shows you that something better exists; and if your are unable to harness your knowledge towards achieving it, you stay in a state of agony.

Essentially, the more knowledge you gather, the more comes the realization of what is wrong in the world and what needs to be corrected.  For many people, an excessive amount of knowledge becomes difficult to handle. People often forget that when we know something can be improved, we have two choices

1.    Let’s do something about it.

2.    Let it be the way it is and move on.

But, the important thing to note is that “Keep agonizing yourself and keep craving about it without taking any action” is not one of the choices.  However, people often choose it, and that is when knowledge becomes difficult to handle i.e. In the absence of action or the ability to let go.

Net Neutrality: The lifeline of the Internet

In this age of information i.e. where information is considered as the most important resource, Internet (or the Web) has emerged as a ubiquitous medium for getting access to all kinds of information. Because of the presence that the Internet (will be calling it the Net onwards in this article) has made in all sectors of life, it has become the primary medium for availing services to users remotely. As with any popular medium of information/services, Net also has its fare share of challenges and debates, the most popular right now being of Net neutrality. Let’s see why Net neutrality means, and why it is a hot topic of debate.

Net Neutrality

Over few decades of evolution that the Net has seen, it has maintained a very peculiar characteristic, as is the case with other public communication and information sharing mediums like telephone, radio etc. The characteristic is its Content and Service Neutralityi.e. the Net itself does not distinguish between the type of content and the service that is being delivered over it. The concept of Net is very loose here, because it essentially means the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as it is the ISPs that act as the access points for users of the Net.

As already mentioned, the concept of neutrality towards content is not something unique to the Net; it hold for almost all mediums of communication/information delivery. Contrast this property with electricity, which is distributed as a commodity rather than as a medium, and is service aware (Electricity bills change based on commercial vs. household connections, peak load basis, use of special devices like air conditioners etc.)

Why are talking about this?

We are talking about Net neutrality due to the ongoing debate on violation of Net neutrality. Out the various such instances, some have been very popular:

1.     The first major incident was in December 2014 when Airtel announced that it will levy extra charges for making voice calls from it’s network over internet (VoIP).

2.     In February 2015, Facebook launched Internet.org in India with Reliance Communications which provides free access to a selected set of websites through an app. The commotion is about the criteria for selecting only these websites for free access, which is apparently biased and violates Net neutrality.

3.     In April 2015, Airtel came up with the Airtel Zero scheme, where it will provide free access to Internet to certain apps, if the app developer firm has already signed the Airtel zero contract.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has been under constant criticism for not being able to take action against these incidents and has not been able to ensure Net neutrality.

There have been many such incidents that potentially violate Net neutrality. I use the term “potentially” here because the notion of Net neutrality has never been fully formalized and it is still ambiguous as to what constitutes Net neutrality. For example, Facebook claims that Internet.org is an anthropologic initiative and thus does not violate Net neutrality. However, the experts’ opinions suggest something else. So, I will leave this interpretation to the reader, until a formal framework for Net neutrality comes into effect.

Is Net neutrality so critical?

In short, yes, it is. As aforementioned that Net has become the primary medium for exchange of information and facilitation of remote services, it holds utmost power in the sense that sentiment and information filtering on the Net can drastically change scenario of competition in the market and reduce quality of content and services. This will basically eliminate any new players from the cutthroat competition even before they make their online presence.

 Extrapolation of these impacts to a few years in the future paints a very horrific picture of the market where only an elite few (with deep pockets) will hold control of what reaches the end-users and basically manipulate their behavior at will.

Legal aspects

There are absolutely no laws for enforcing Net neutrality in India. TRAI has some guidelines for the Unified Access Service License, that promotes Net neutrality but don’t enforce it.  The IT Act 2000 also does not make any provisions regarding Net neutrality.

The way ahead…

The debate over Net neutrality is going to grow even more turbulent because of the importance of Internet and criticality of Net neutrality not just for large corporations but also for individual end users. Since, we have already established that access to unbiased information is critical for innovation and indiscriminate online presence is necessary for maintaining fair competition, Indian legal system needs to ensure that a formal legal framework is put into effect around the principles of Net neutrality.

Obsession for the first

"Jo Jeeta wohi Sikandar" is a phrase often used to justify the need for the best option and the quest of standing first in a competition.

Bollywood movie 3 idiots has captured this quest very well. The obsession of being first and the importance of running faster than others was demonstrated by Viru Sahsrabuddhe (aka Virus) using the example of "koyal" and "kowa" on the very first day.

Also, on the first day's lecture, he asks a question, "Who was the first person to set foot on the moon?" Most of the students knew the answer.

Then he made this question a little tough reframing as, "Who was the second person doing the same?" Not even a single student knew the answer.

That is the grace of first person that dims the followers.

The rankers in a competition other than the topper always  face the feeling of regret over could-have-been first. The margin between winner and the others becomes the curse figure for the latter.

Was the second person to Neil Armstrong less talented than him or is the runner up in any contest inferior to the winner?

I don’t think so. Each person has his own story with different circumstances. There can never be ideal level playing ground to compare any two persons. Then what is the problem?

The society we live in remembers someone only on the basis of what one has achieved, and not how much potential one possess.

Do they really have true power of making judgments, when they don't really have the experience of that journey?

I can share my own experience when the same people criticizing me over the two opposite decisions. When I was planning to go abroad for a job (P.S.- I was the first in my home to do so :P), I heard few people around me disparaging me over the decision by giving the arguments like,

"You are a girl, that would be a struggle for you to stay alone in a foreign land"

"You don't belong there, you should try a more convenient job"

"You might get spoiled in the US culture (smoking, drinking etc.)".

Fortunately, I decided to go. When I returned back after a few months, the same people were making judgments -

"how come you are back?, see I told you, you couldn't survive there"

"You shouldn't be back here when you were earning so well" etc.

If I have never been first in any competition, does that mean all my achievements should be belittled? If I am taking my work load chill, it doesn't mean I am fraud or if I am taking it too seriously, it also doesn't mean that I am less competent.

What right do people have to do so & pass unfair comments?

They are not God who can pass such judgments.

They didn’t run; I ran the race of my life with my mind and heart.

The least they can do is Congratulate & acknowledge my worth..

But, it does not matter what people say..

They cannot steal my achievement away..

In my next post jealousy I am going to put the other side of learning from all.

Instead of putting obstacles to others progress, we should better ourselves and should atleast avoid saying disparaging words if we cannot encourage them.

I don’t want to be the 1st woman to do this or that, but I want my targets to be wonderful enough for me.

I want to explore the power of "not yet" instead of focusing on right here, right now, and ahead of everyone.

We think- Log Kya Kahenge? Fact is- Log kahenge

Marital rape: trivialization vs criminalization - Part II

Continuing the previous post Marital Rape: Trivialization vs criminalization - Part I

Why should it be banned?

Marital rape is considered as the violation of Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian constitution which guarantees the equal protection of laws to all persons. By depriving married women of an effective penal remedy against forced sexual intercourse, it violates their right to privacy and bodily integrity, aspects of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, by differentiating them from unmarried women.

Marital privacy – which justifies laws such as the marital rape exception – is a fundamental denial of society’s commitment to treating all persons with equal concern and respect.

After making high pitch for the government flagship Beti Bachao beti padao, we want our 'Beti' to not have a right on her own body.

If marital rape has been committed, wife is a rape survivor and she has same rights like any other rape survivor.

Don’t women have a right to live  a dignified life even after marriage? I think, this is not true in the current setup. If it was that, then government would have continued the schemes like Sukanya Samraddhi even after marriage. Parents too would have shared the responsibility of a girl child even after marriage like they do for boys. Does marriage provides the license to rape? Hopefully, No. Sexual violence within circle of trust is more painful and the absence of a law to safeguard the same is a human right violation and unjust towards women.

What are the flaws with the legal system?

Our legal system doesn’t provide any concrete protection to the victims of marital rape. Under Hindu marriage act, 1955 one of the "conjugal duties" of the wife is to provide sexual satisfaction to her husband, a very archaic thought congruent to the thoughts of a patriarchal society. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) considers forced sex in marriages as a crime only when the wife is below 15 or the couple is legally separated. Thus, marital rape is not a criminal offense under the IPC. Marital rape victims have to take recourse to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005(PWDVA).The PWDVA, which came into force in 2006, outlaws marital rape. However, it offers only a civil remedy for the offence.

It is not the case that these irrational acts have not been up for revision. Law Commission's report(2000) and Justice Verma panel's(2013) recommended to do away with the exemption granted to marital rape in the laws. Unfortunately, these were not accepted by the government and the marital rape continues to be unrecognized by law. Parliamentary committee opposed the Verma commission proposal saying that entire family system will be brought under great stress if the Marital Rape is brought under the law.

But it is prone to misuse?

Proponents of marital rape exemption argue that if legalized, this law is prone to misuse as is the case with The Dowry act. I do agree with the same because it is really difficult to prove the charges of marital rape. It is worse when we rely on the methods like two finger test for proving charges of rape in general.

Here, I would say that every law is prone to misuse, let it be a dowry act or an anti defection law, yet we have to accept that the misuse is at the part of investigation.

Moreover, don’t we have acts like Prevention of Atrocities Act(SC & ST), 1989 and similar laws against discrimination? Aren't they prone to misuse? Because here also you have to rely on the statement of the victim prima facia. It can also be used to harass someone. Just because of this lame skepticism, we should not try to evade from our responsibility.

Why isn't law ahead of prejudices?

In a recent case of marital rape, a 27 years old woman herself went up and approached court for marital rape. The court made a superficial assessment and concluded by saying that we wont serve any individual case and asked the victim to come up with a PIL, thus denying to serve the plea. Isn't this absurd that a person cannot stand for himself/herself? I used to think that this is the most conventional thing that a person can seek justice for himself/herself. Similarly, political parties have divisive opinions. Few of them want consensus building in society as a pre-requisite to come with a law. As if society was ready for the revolutionary acts like Untouchability Act, Transgender Act, Child labor Act or affirmative action for vulnerable sections.

What is the international scenario?

Many countries have made it a crime for a husband to force his wife to have sex in recent years. Malaysia changed its laws to that effect in 2007; Turkey in 2005; and Bolivia in 2013. The United States began criminalizing marital rape in 1970s and most European countries in the 1990s. The United Nations has also recommended India to criminalize marital rape. Though we try to emulate US in many areas to prove ourselves as progressive, doesn’t this law provide the opportunity for the same?

Implementation Challenges in criminalizing marital rape

The major challenge is to prove the crime, what shall be the evidence? How will the investigation proceed? Charges of marital rape can be put up just to take revenge and settle scores. There is an enormous amount of social stigma attached to the marital rape. However, the picture is not that bleak as it seems. It is not the going to be the case that just after criminalizing, there will be plethora of cases. As we can see there is nearly 10% conviction rate in normal rapes and dowry cases. Marital rape is a very grey area, so its fate stands tough time. In present times, it may be very difficult to enforce too. But shouldn't the laws and their implementation envision a equitable future and a utopian society.

Is reconciliation not the only solution?

I agree and advocate for couple counselling in cases of differences and argumentative fights. But it cannot be the last resort. There has to be some mechanism on top of it for very abusive relationships.

Isn't the act of considering women as the victim all the time feminist and skewed?

True, it is. Cases of sexual assault against the transgender community are not currently prosecuted as rape under Section 375, which only recognizes women as victims. Here I would like to refer Justice Verma Committee recommendation to amend the section to make it gender neutral with respect to the victim. Because it can be anyone, a man, a woman or a transgender.

What if a man has no sex for a year, can he force his wife? Isn't it about the fairness to men also? What remedy does he has?

For this question, I would say this is a valid ground to have a divorce, so go for it, but why to impose your will on someone else. Respect comes before love and much before sex. If someone is not able to earn that respect, then one should have no right to love other person.

What is it that I am up against?

I am not the extreme leftist person who wants a revolutionary change in laws and want to prosecute half of the country in one go. What I am against of, are the blatant statements made by our lawmakers and even institutions of high respect.

Though the enforcement may be a challenge, but the arguments like, the society not being ready to accept, or crying foul of our backwardness doesn’t hold any water. Atleast they should not set the wrong precedent of trivializing the marital rape. It has actually legalized marital rape(make it permissible and even encourage by vindicating marital rape) in negative sense rather than in positive sense (to prevent it). It is well accepted truth, that many rapes are going on in bedroom then why we are still in denial mode considering marital rape as an exception?

Marital rape clearly reveals our gross double standard on sexual violence.

Way forward

I understand, this issue is sensitive. It took around 30 years for US to come to the present law which got started only with heinous nature of marital rapes. Can't we try to implement it in such a phased manner? Atleast in the cases where it is clearly visible, where a woman has undergone tremendous injury, it should be made punishable as a criminal offence.

Before 2012, it was an odd act to even talk about rape, but it was the solidarity of the nation that came along with Nirbhaya, and today majority of people can condemn the act by taking its name literally. I hope marital rape will also get the same recognition.

We need a social reform because legal reform not sufficient, dowry is still embedded in our society after 10 years of its existence. It is the progressive social consciousness which is need of the hour.

Sexual consent is the right of every woman, married or unmarried, as much as of men, and nonconsensual sex should be treated exactly the same, irrespective of the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim.

It is the inner khap panchayat in us all.

[Meanwhile do watch movie Aakashvani to get a practical picture of marital rape in our society.]

Marital rape: trivialization vs criminalization - Part I

In the aftermath of Nirbhaya BBC documentary, the country came out united. Who would agree with Mukesh Singh's justification to rape? I guess, only miniscule proportion.  Now consider another case, Suppose a person did the same with his wife. I guess these will be the most probable reactions- 1. Aadmi hi vaaiyad tha (the man was beast),  this was an unacceptable act, so she should have gone for legal remedies, and if left to us, we would have lynched him 2. It is not possible marriage is a sacred institution, the wife should have been lying, moreover it is their personal matter and wife has already given consent to have sex at the time of marriage  (any third moderate reaction is welcome).

Though marital rape has been an issue of political and social debate for a long time without any conclusion yet. Lets try to demystify it.

What is marriage?

It is a social and legal institution  in which two people mutual consent to work out things together in the train of life.

What is marital rape?

Marital rape (also known as spousal rape) is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence and of sexual abuse.

What does the data say?

Out of the total number of rapes reported to NFHS(though it is an informal survey whose premise was to provide anonymity), 97.7% rapes were committed by the people known to the victim, out of which marital rapes accounts for 2/3rd. UN study has established the fact that 75% men want their wives to agree to sex. There have been many heartrending stories of women raped every night, even during pregnancy and child birth. It is a physical as well as mental trauma because the perpetrator is known to the person, often very close. It is a bitter reality even in developed nations.

Why all the fuss now?

Recently during parliamentary proceedings, a minister reacted on a question regarding the status of marital rape in India, “It is considered that the concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context due to various factors e.g. level of education/illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs, mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament, etc”. Other proponents of the marital rape exception, also, argue that it is essential to preserve the integrity of marriage, which is a crucial social institution, so marital rape cannot be brought within the purview of rape law.

What are the possible reasons?

Though we can easily attribute the prevalence of patriarchal mindset as the main reason, yet there are many deep rooted causes.

According to NFHS survey around 74% marriages in India occur without due consent of the bride and the groom. How can we expect two strangers to be very comfortable with each other at the very first night? And the same thing becomes routine due to lack of any firm resistance. We, as a society are stuck in the bus vs bedroom debate and usually make a remarkable difference between the two. If a woman is getting raped in a bus it is rape, but in bedroom it is a ritual. This trivialization of marital rape is one of the major reasons for the perpetuation of the same.

Moreover, there is huge divide across the society. Though, the main victims are women, yet in most cases it is the elder women who give formal acceptance to marital rape by putting it in the category of necessary adjustment or "compromise" in a marriage. And it goes on and on across generations, and we consume this culture of adjustment. Forced sex has become a “wifely duty.”

Another important reason is economic dependence of women on their husbands and in-laws. Rape every night and domestic violence becomes a small price to pay, when basic survival is at stake.


To be continued...

Modern Feminism = Equality?

This article addresses a very sensitive topic, especially for women.  We are going to look at the concept of Feminism, origin and necessity of the idea and it’s modern transformation.

Feminism is a movement and not a nuisance

As Wikipedia says, Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.

The origin of these movements and ideologies lies in the fact that our society has been male dominated (patriarchal) for a long time.  For such a society, women’s standing up for their rights of equality seems like a nuisance, instead of a fair call.

However, the proponents of feminism based it on the fundamental idea of equality for all.  Taking into account the reality of Indian villages and small cities where women are still treated as second grade citizens, feminism has always been a necessity.

Feminism and Affirmative action

Affirmative action (vaguely similar to reservation in India) for oppressed and backward classes of the society is closely related to the concept of feminism in the sense that they both seek to provide favorable conditions for the section they want to benefit by violating the principle of equal opportunities.  Simply put, they use inequality in competition to provide equality in standard of life.

Modern Feminism

There is no such real term as modern feminism; I am using this term, as I could not find anything more suitable. Although the original motivation for feminism still applies and there is still a lot of work to be done, it is growing into something undesirable in some sections of the society.

The original concept behind feminism was and will be of equality rather than preferential treatment or superiority. The cases where men see women as inferior are the majority, but, I have come across women who put all men (except may be their brothers and father) into the same bucket of being perverts, dominating or extremely rude. The negative traits mentioned here are individual characteristics and have equal probability of being present in women as in men.

It’s a known and researched fact that media has been commoditizing women in India. They are not portrayed as source of inspiration, rather, as source of pleasure or a thing to use. The so-called modern Indian woman has so accepted this portrayal so blindly that if a man tries to challenge this image (sometimes it’s not a challenge, but just a display of male dominance, but as women, we should learn to differentiate between the two), he is hated, scolded and put in the same bucket of having an orthodox patriarchal mind set.

As I already mentioned that feminism does not promote preferential treatment either (there is a difference between preferential treatment and affirmative action). Recently, on social media, I saw a girl beating a man who was teasing her after police arrested him. There is no problem in standing up against eve teasing, but feminism does not give you permission to break the law, unless you need it for self-defense.

Conclusion

The idea is that the concept of feminism is very fundamental in the sense that it only demands equal treatment for women as men, and it should be promoted in a male dominated society. However, women should also learn to treat men as equals, rather than inferior (or superior).  Promote equality through affirmative action not preferential treatment. 

India: Perfect Imperfections

Are you an Indian? A disappointed Indian. Are you the one who pick up

the Indian newspaper or watch an Indian news channel in the morning to destroy own happiness and descend the ladder into depression?

Probably you are one of them(I am the one)?

What is the first image most of us have in our mind, when we talk about India? It is  poverty, destitution, over population, corruption, starvation, crime rates and terrorism. 

 

Indianness has become the passion only at occasional times, either when Indian cricket team is playing in the stadium or when some neighbor knocks our country's borders. On 15th August or 26th Jaunary, it again gets highlighted in the form of selfies(with flag) or facebook statuses.

In the normal times, we are looking to move away from this nation. The number of H1B visa applications (2.5 lakh this year) is the testimony to the fact that people want to leave this place. Probably because this is the place where opportunities are in numbers one could hardly rely on for the safe future. Probably, because this is the land of problems.

Today, the people of India are so blinded by the problems in their nation that they have forgotten the great wealth that lies within. And maybe, just maybe, it is the fault of the Indian media and our prejudices formed because of it.

Why do most of us have so much hatred against the police men irrespective of the fact that we have faced their atrocities or not?

We cry foul against system so much about the system, that we even forget to thank NDRF(National Disaster Task force) for its efforts in the extreme conditions.

It will be a herculean task to enumerate all the achievements of India[neither I am a politician who will like to do the same]. But one hardly pays attention to those achievements today.

At the maximum sympathetic attitude, we attribute India having too much potential in manpower, wealth(may be black money), natural resources, but unable to tap it. Here again we blame the 'system'. True, the people are not corrupt, but the system is. But isn't the case everywhere else? India’s political structure is no more corrupt than any other nation. It is just that the Indian people needs to change its parameters to judge the situation of the country. The institutional failures or the systemic failures can only be corrected by the people facing it.

Lets be more grateful and  responsible citizens and consider this nation as a family where it is not feasible to put the precondition of  keeping all the pieces right. It is not wrong to put problems in perspective, but it is definitely wrong not to revel in what we excel. Self confidence not the false pride is the need of hour.

Should a woman change her maiden surname after marriage?

In 3 idiots movie, the heroine shows concern over adopting the surname of Ranchoddas Shamaldas "Chanchad" after marrying the hero. In the climax the name of hero turns out to be something else, Phunsukh Wangdu. This time as well the reaction of heroine was same.

Once I saw one of my didi who kept her last wedding card laminated, probably because that was the last formal document carrying her original name. It seems like a RIP given to your surname. :(

What is so special in the maiden surname and why a woman needs to leave it after marriage?

Most of the time, this issue never gets attention because it is rare (atleast in India) where our community is slightly conservative and the so-called obedient children married within the same community. Thus, no surname change. So children need to rarely bother, whose surname they carry.

But here we are going to discuss the case where a woman has to undergo a surname change, probably because it is the sign of possession by the man over woman. Sometimes this issue becomes serious enough to lead to divorce. If a woman wants to hold on to her name because that is her identity – and in a way it will always be, she is termed as a feminist. It crosses the light, when some people even try to change the first name of woman as well with the argument of  making the lady auspicious and lucky for the home.

This identity crisis may not bother everyone, but to whom it does it, might not always be justified by the ego of the lady. There are real problems faced by these women. Applying for a job, they need to produce their marriage certificate along with any ID proof, as if marriage certificate is her identity. She need to renew her passport. And obviously as expected the patriarchal society, a man has comfort in this domain. Any married couple with different surnames are seen as two people having affair without society's sanction.

This fact bothers me more when it is love marriage, where the boy was supposed to love the girl with her maiden name, yet has to change his preference after marriage. And a girl has to leave it up as a sign of love and devotion. As if being a human being doesn’t give her right to  keep her identity.

Some people give argument, that what is in the name? If that is the case, Can I call a day as night and a night as day? Obviously, no. The term is associated with the phenomena. So is the name of a girl. She is carrying this term from her childhood, retaining it on all of her documents, why should she leave it after an event, marriage? Won't it be a kind of plastic surgery given to her seizing her identity?

As the woman are becoming career oriented, they need to carry their identity along with. Suppose a girl A become girl B, first she needs to reformulate her documents carrying hassles of affidavits proving that her both names belongs to her. Second, her acquaintances cannot search her on records, facebook except seeing her in personal.

I have one question over the significance of surname. If the name signifies belongingness to one's family, does it mean the girl no longer belong to her original family? Most of the conservatives are going to justify it with the argument that, once a girl get married, she should never spend more than one night at her home. She should never return to her home, it’s better to die with her in-laws rather than to come back.

We just need to ponder over the question, if a woman takes her husband’s name in marriage, is it a sign of commitment or of inequality?

Recent controversy over "Thaali"- mangalsutra is another example of how the imposition of any identity which is limited to women only and sign of inequality. Karwa Chauth - why a women need to do it? Doesn’t the husband want her back? Though, there is a huge list, I will restrict myself here only.

Personally, I think it is a decision best left to the couple, it reflects the strength and trust in the relationship. It’s a human nature, if you impose something on them they are going to revolt, so leave them along and let them decide.

Thus we can conclude, changing maiden surname is one of the stereotype and expectations from a woman. A woman should have enough freedom to decide what she wants for herself. After all, marriage is about growing one's family not leaving them.

A truly educated person

A husband to his wife, "You should be proud of me. I am an IITian plus IIMian. You should respect me and behave accordingly".

I can still remember a scene from a Bollywood movie Ramji London wale. The in-laws of Ramji's sister demand a car because he has to go to his office by scooter, getting wet along the way during monsoon rains ( he is a news reader in weather forecast show on a news channel. I wonder, can't he wear a raincoat in rainy days after predicting the same :P ).

Another instance : He is an IAS officer. He deserves at least 1 crore for the investment he has made (time and money).

Is education really a stacking of degrees and then bidding over them? In this article, I will ponder over the qualities of a supposedly educated person. How a educated person behave in different circumstances and how he ought to be?

Higher echelons' educated persons and their economic activities

Lets start from the ministers and bureaucrats. Despite holding so many degrees, clearing the most prestigious examination, they are the root cause of widespread administrative and political corruption as evident in 2G, coal scam, illegal mining, CWG scam etc. The highly educated businessmen are found indulged in crony capitalism having the sole motive of profit earning, sometimes even at the cost of nation's wealth (looting the nation's exchequer) and also degenerating humanity (e.g., seizing tribal lands). They are supposed to be the torch bearers of the nation, yet they set the wrong precedent undermining the whole value of education.

Participation in social evils

Social ills are equally widespread in educated as well as uneducated sections of the society, including dowry, female foeticide, involvement in social crimes like rape, murder, domestic violence. Even the people claiming to have and propagate value education, like, Rampal and Asaram, are involved in heinous crimes.

An educated person is supposed to get over the ills of society like

patriarchal mindset of feudal system, racism, communalism, child labor, discrimination. Yet they are found equally indulged as the uneducated persons are.

Consumerism of the so called educated people

Symbolism is a new phenomena associated with the current generation and the society is becoming increasingly consumerist. Pizza, burger has replaced the home cooked food. Engineering colleges are the common sites of students consuming drugs, liquor and cigarettes. These educated persons may save their time by relying on 2 minute cooked Maggie, not realizing its effect on health. Thanks to them, we are facing the problem of plenty, over nutrition is of equal concern as under nutrition. This malnutrition has become the root cause  for making India a non communicable disease capital.

Are educated people really civilized?

I have seen "educated people", flaunting their degrees, jobs, to be bipolar in different circumstances, littering and urinating on Indian streets, while praising the western system for being such a nice place to live in. A civilized person is assumed to follow the law of the land. But this characteristic is also missing from the so called educated persons. Despite having literacy rate of 74%, we have one of the minimum tax-GDP ratio. Why? Because these educated people are not interested in paying taxes considering it as an extra burden. Corporates are making use of tax concessions, yet indulging in tax evasion crimes. They try to escape even a marginal stamp duty on land purchases. I would even go for blatant statement-that they are underrepresented in our jails compared to their deeds. Obviously, they can afford to roam outside.

They are equally indulged in illegal encroachments, polluting cities by unrestricted use of private vehicles for the sake of showing off, littering roads assuming it to be public property not belonging to them (so far their houses are clean). Obviously, they don’t get affected by the mosquitos of polluted drains (they can afford so), but in the process, it affects the not so educated poor people.

Social reforms

Such are the educated persons driving the country that they have not been able to pass women reservation bill for decades. We have educated women in the parliament, doing little towards less educated section of women ( Hemamalini making comment on the Vrindavan widows)

Social contribution

Are these educated people contributing to our society and economy? I would say, yes they are contributing to our economy. Thanks to the IT junta of India, we have been able to preserve the tag of world class service sector. But socially, they are more motivated towards personal gains by going abroad. Let me explain it by another example- How many of these educated persons want to educate others, I mean, how many of them want to pursue a teaching profession? How many of them want to serve in villages by opening a clinic there after becoming a doctor?

Conclusion

I will try to conclude by giving certain qualities of a truly educated persons.

An educated person is one who has not just studied the concepts taught in  educational institutions, but has internalized them into his/her life. When one claims to study about polity, one should respect the constitution, fundamental duties and rich culture of the nation. More importantly such a person must have good values as a part of him/her; be reverent towards nature; do right towards other human beings; practice sustainable living (Gandhiji was a truly educated person); believe in high thinking and also be grounded in life. An educated citizen would always keep his personal interest secondary to the societal and national interest.

Going by the above definition, lets ask ourselves, Are we truly educated or just an educated illiterate. Education is a phenomena of purification of mind and soul, and needs to be practiced throughout the life rather than limiting it to gathering degrees and certificates.